Random‐effects meta‐analysis of time‐to‐event data using the expectation–maximisation algorithm and shrinkage estimators

Meta-analysis of time-to-event data has proved difficult in the past because consistent summary statistics often cannot be extracted from published results. The use of individual patient data allows for the re-analysis of each study in a consistent fashion and thus makes meta-analysis of time-to-event data feasible. Time-to-event data can be analysed using proportional hazards models, but incorporating random effects into these models is not straightforward in standard software. This paper fits random-effects proportional hazards models by treating the random effects as missing data and applying the expectation-maximisation algorithm. This approach has been used before by using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods to perform the expectation step of the algorithm. In this paper, the expectation step is simplified, without sacrificing accuracy, by approximating the expected values of the random effects using simple shrinkage estimators. This provides a robust method for fitting random-effects models that can be implemented in standard statistical packages. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  Mark C Simmonds,et al.  Meta‐analysis of time‐to‐event data: a comparison of two‐stage methods , 2011, Research synthesis methods.

[2]  D J Sargent,et al.  A general framework for random effects survival analysis in the Cox proportional hazards setting. , 1998, Biometrics.

[3]  Paula R Williamson,et al.  Aggregate data meta‐analysis with time‐to‐event outcomes , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[4]  J. Whitehead Fitting Cox's Regression Model to Survival Data Using Glim , 1980 .

[5]  J. Palmgren,et al.  Estimation of Multivariate Frailty Models Using Penalized Partial Likelihood , 2000, Biometrics.

[6]  Mark C Simmonds,et al.  Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials: a review of methods used in practice , 2005, Clinical trials.

[7]  M. Parmar,et al.  Postoperative radiotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer , 1998, The Lancet.

[8]  P. Grambsch,et al.  Penalized Survival Models and Frailty , 2003 .

[9]  F. Vaida,et al.  Proportional hazards model with random effects. , 2000, Statistics in medicine.

[10]  S. Burdett,et al.  Postoperative radiotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from nine randomised controlled trials , 1998, The Lancet.

[11]  N. Laird,et al.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials. , 1986, Controlled clinical trials.

[12]  A Whitehead,et al.  Meta‐analysis of continuous outcome data from individual patients , 2001, Statistics in medicine.

[13]  D. Rubin,et al.  Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM - algorithm plus discussions on the paper , 1977 .

[14]  H Goldstein,et al.  A multilevel model framework for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes. , 2000, Statistics in medicine.

[15]  H. Goldstein,et al.  Meta‐analysis using multilevel models with an application to the study of class size effects , 2000 .

[16]  R. Peto,et al.  Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomized trials. , 1985, Progress in cardiovascular diseases.

[17]  Ronghui Xu,et al.  Proportional Hazards Mixed-effects Model (PHMM) , 2013 .

[18]  Catrin Tudur-Smith Commentary on Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials: a review of methods used in practice , 2006 .

[19]  L. Stewart,et al.  To IPD or not to IPD? , 2002, Evaluation & the health professions.